I was wrong

[Care4all]

every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.

When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....

so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

using an example of this company having 1000 employees....

If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.

MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.

So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.

It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.

This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.


Care

 

[Skull Pilot]

When some are taking more than their share of the common wealth, more than they even need, that is theft. Whether stolen by legal or illegal means, it is still theft.

Who the hell are you to presume that one who has more than another that they stole it.

Unless of course you are changing the definition of theft.

So in your mind if I sell something to someone and make a profit then I stole that profit from the person I sold a product?

If you are living in luxury and that person is living in poverty you are stealing, instead of sharing. But we can't count on you to do the right thing. That is why we have governments.

It is not stealing if said poor person freely chose to purchase my product. i did not hold a gun to his head did I?

To some I could be said to live in luxury as you put it again who the hell are you to make those types of value decisions?

talk about arrogance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An economy results from the production, distribution and consumption of goods. It has no purpose but rather is the result of other activities.

I think an "economy". the word we use to describe specific, organised, deliberate (planned), collective activities, isn't determined by its activities so much as its purpose. Human beings are rational, our actions - individually and collectively - are definitely purposeful. Any non-purposeful behaviour is usually extinguished when it's useless nature is identified. The purpose of the collective activity we call "the economy" is to sustain human life (individually and collectively) and to make it as pleasant as possible.

Human beings are NOT rational as a whole. And it is not the collective purpose to make life pleasant. that is an individual choice and an individual pursuit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.

When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....

so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

using an example of this company having 1000 employees....

If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.

MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.

So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.

It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.

This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.


Care

so in your world the owner of a small company who risked his and his family's security to start a new business should only get the same pay as his employees?

 

[Immanuel]

snipped for brevity

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one area that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that they estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

 

[Skull Pilot]

snipped for brevity

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one are that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that the estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

wow.

Hey if you don't like that the owner/ CEO of the company you work for makes more than you take a fucking hike and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bye bye, see you later alligator, bon voyage and all that rot.

 

[Immanuel]

snipped for brevity

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one are that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that the estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

wow.

Hey if you don't like that the owner/ CEO of the company you work for makes more than you take a fucking hike and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bye bye, see you later alligator, bon voyage and all that rot.

Excuse me? Where did I say I didn't like what the CEO makes?

Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote? I'm talking about budgetting and looking at things from a management perspective not bitching about what the CEO makes.

Obviously you didn't read.

Immie

 

[Skull Pilot]

The post from Care and you both imply that a CEO should make less not more.

"...they should cut the CEO's salary"

Hey I own a company and I'll cut my employees salary by reducing their hours before I cut my own. Sorry but that's life.

This isn't about budgeting it's about the claim in the OP that somehow the rich are stealing from you. The post by Care basically said that yes CEO's steal from employees because they make more and you agreed.

 

[Care4all]

snipped for brevity

So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?

If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one are that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that the estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

wow.

Hey if you don't like that the owner/ CEO of the company you work for makes more than you take a fucking hike and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bye bye, see you later alligator, bon voyage and all that rot.

first off, i am talking about big corporations NOT INDIVIDUAL COMPANY OWNERS....the CEO and board of directors ARE NOT the owner of the company, the share holders are....

Individual companies with owners present, do NOT tend to be greedy imo and have a hands on relationship with their employees and tend to pay them according to what they produce for them....

and in general, individual companies are not 100 million dollar companies....where the ceo, NOT the owner, gets a $5 million annual salary... or a $500 million dollar annual salary.

 

[Immanuel]

The post from Care and you both imply that a CEO should make less not more.

"...they should cut the CEO's salary"

Hey I own a company and I'll cut my employees salary by reducing their hours before I cut my own. Sorry but that's life.

This isn't about budgeting it's about the claim in the OP that somehow the rich are stealing from you. The post by Care basically said that yes CEO's steal from employees because they make more and you agreed.

Read it again.

I said that if management felt that salaries were too high they could decide to cut the CEO's salary rather than cutting the production staff's salary. I said that was their decision. I never implied that it was what they should do.

And you may own your own company. You may make the decision (you are the management of your company) to cut your staff salary before you cut your own and that IS your privilege without a doubt. But in the hypothetical that we were discussing, it is also the right of the Board of Directors (the management of the corporation) to decide to cut the CEO's salary rather than production staff. They have the right to analyze their own situation and make their own decisions as to where to cut whether it be production or management salaries.

Nowhere in my post did I say "should" cut the CEO's salary.

Immie

 

[xsited1]

When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

...

P.J. O'Rourke always has an interesting take on such matters. Here are a few excerpts from an article published 12 years ago that's just as applicable today:

But proposing to close the "wealth gap" is worse than silly. It entails a lie. The notion of economic equality is based on an ancient and ugly falsehood central to bad economic thinking: There's a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth is zero-sum. If I have too many cups of tea, you have to lick the tea pot. But wealth is based on productivity. Productivity is expandable. Otherwise there wouldn't be any economic thinking, good or bad, or any tea or tea pots either.

So, if wealth is not theft, if the thing that makes you rich doesn't make me poor, why don't collectivists concentrate on the question, "How do we make everyone wealthy?" Or better, "How have we been managing to do this so brilliantly since 1820?"

Why, instead, do collectivists concentrate on the question, "How do we redistribute wealth?"

The tenth commandment (from the Bible, of course): "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covert thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

Here are God's basic rules about how the Tribes of Israel should live, a very brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts, and right at the end of it is, "Don't envy your friend's cow."

What is that doing in there? Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose, as one of them, jealousy about the things the man next door has? And yet think about how important to the well-being of a community this commandment is. If you want a donkey, if you want a meal, if you want an employee, don't complain about what other people have, go get your own. The tenth commandment sends a message to collectivists, to people who believe wealth is best obtained by redistribution. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell.

Collectivism is silly, deceitful, a sin. It's also cowardly. We fear the power others have over us. And wealth is power. So we fear the rich.

Closing the Wealth Gap | P.J. O'Rourke | Cato Institute: Speeches

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[ba1614]

 

[Ame®icano]

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.

Care

Let's say your company of 1000 employees doesn't make any profit, or worse, them have loses. They try to stay above the water, lay off some workers, enforce paycuts, no bonuses, and is not working. Share holders and investors are not getting dividends, company is at the edge of survival, nobody's happy.

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

 

[Charles Stucker]

so in your world the owner of a small company who risked his and his family's security to start a new business should only get the same pay as his employees?

Very few small businesses make profits which would allow the "owner" to get 500 times the pay of his workers. The problem does not lie in small companies, and to suggest that it does, particularly with the silly comment about a founder of a small company being expected to earn the same as any employee, is disturbing.
The problem lies with huge corporations where the CEO is chosen, not for skill at managing the company, but for friends/allies on the Board of directors. The problem lies with Boards which convince investors to make money selling at a higher price than they bought the stock to diminish expectation of dividend returns which allows for more wealth to be diverted into the hands of the "Executives" rather than the small stockholders or workers, two parties dismissed by the Board and their cronies as insignificant peons placed on Earth to do the bidding of their "social betters." Why study engineering when an engineer in Texas with a BS and 10-15 years experience can currently expect to earn no more than $60K yearly? You're better off studying shop in high school and going to a developing country for a few years to make big bucks as a toolmaker setting up their industries, then returning to the US with wads of cash in your pocket. The US needs engineers, but does not reimburse them for the effort and expertise they have. Why not? The same holds true in several other fields. If you go to college you should have one goal; make friends with a wealthy student, whatever it takes. Better, make friends with several wealthy students. Get a BBA, so you will have more time to socialize and won't possibly be seen as an intellectual competitor to the rich kids or their parents, who might linger and make decisions for years. Then when one inherits a position you will be in a position to get ahead by being appointed to a nice comfy executives office. And with the current standards to which US executives are held you won't even be expected to be competent at your job, just brownnose the wealthy folks who got you the job and get rich.

Of course that route won't work if you have an ounce of dignity. Nor if you have a moral objection to cronyism. But other than that.....

Hopefully at least a few readers will understand why a society cannot funtion long in this manner. Someone asked about purpose of economies and they might have done better asking the purpose of societies, though given the seemingly deliberate obtuseness of some posters that might not have been enough.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

The problem is that most CEO's do not save companies. They do not increase profits, etc. All they seem to do is assign themselves and a few loyal apparatchiks immense pay.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny comic

Do you have the one where the kids go to the republican's house and he takes all the candy from their labor and then kicks them off his porch?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one are that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that the estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

wow.

Hey if you don't like that the owner/ CEO of the company you work for makes more than you take a fucking hike and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bye bye, see you later alligator, bon voyage and all that rot.

first off, i am talking about big corporations NOT INDIVIDUAL COMPANY OWNERS....the CEO and board of directors ARE NOT the owner of the company, the share holders are....

Individual companies with owners present, do NOT tend to be greedy imo and have a hands on relationship with their employees and tend to pay them according to what they produce for them....

and in general, individual companies are not 100 million dollar companies....where the ceo, NOT the owner, gets a $5 million annual salary... or a $500 million dollar annual salary.

So the shareholders want to make as much as possible and if they vote that a CEO should make X dollars, who are you to say the CEO is stealing from the employees?

Isn't it the shareholders that are stealing?

 

[Care4all]

X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.

Care

Let's say your company of 1000 employees doesn't make any profit, or worse, them have loses. They try to stay above the water, lay off some workers, enforce paycuts, no bonuses, and is not working. Share holders and investors are not getting dividends, company is at the edge of survival, nobody's happy.

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

that ceo can do the same job without taking 1/3 of the shareholder's money, i can assure you, this is the case! the company CAN find a ceo to take them out of their profit slump without giving the farm away.... there is never a case where a ceo is worth 1/3 or even $100 million of any corporation's profit.... those things only happen because of board of directors and ceo's watching eachother's backs....i have known many ceo's, they are not any smarter than the vp's or directors they hire that actually do the job needed to get the job done.....ceo's are responsible for having the right people working for them...which is a pretty important job but not worth hundreds of millions in shareholder's money....again in my opinion.

were companies not successful when ceo's made $10 million a year vs the $100 million?

now they make the $100 million a year when their companies are on the brink of bankruptcy....that is wrong....it steals from stockholders.

 

[HUGGY]

What do the mega-rich do with their money? They couldn't possibly spend it all.

Invest it into companies, of course. Companies = Jobs

Oh really? Name a company started up that provided lots of jobs in america by a wealthy person investing.

Your statement is a myth. The jobs are being provided in third world countries